P3D Re: Print Film vs Slide Film

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Andrea Blair <asblair@xxxxxxxxxxx>


>For someone truly learning photography and all of the basic principles,
>print film is just not the way to go. There are far too many
>uncontrollable variables that will have impact on the final result
>without the novice photographer knowing why.

Actually I agree completely with this statement.

>I find in my experience people learn to control their photography
faster
>and better by using and learning from slide film. I now consider prints
>a convenience and handy to get double prints of parties, etc. to hand
>out to friends and family.


Just for the record, George was suggesting a single setting for the
Realist which would produce "acceptable" results under a variety of
conditions.  Given that, I added the comment that print film would
provide five stops of latitude (one under and up to four over), greatly
increasing the likelihood of the uneducated user getting an acceptable
exposure under a wide variety of conditions *without needing to know
how*.

If one is going in the opposite direction, i.e. trying to learn all one
can about how to control the precise appearance of one's photographs
(which I personally feel is important), then slide film is definitely
the way to go, for all the reasons you described.  If you're off on
exposure, it won't be compensated for in printing; if your slide is
blurry, you can't blame the printer, etc.  And of course the resulting
tonal range from a properly-exposed transparency blows away anything you
can get from tradition RC paper prints.

Nevertheless, there is a significant portion of the population that just
wants to get pictures without having to know anything 'technical' about
photography, no matter how much we may personally think that this is the
wrong approach.   They might as well be able to get stereo photographs
as well.

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



------------------------------